Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech on Bill C-13, which would amend the employment insurance act. This bill would enable soldiers to receive their full parental benefits and their full parental leave if they are sent on a mission while on parental leave. The soldiers would have the right to take their leave when they return from the mission. If they were on a mission when they were entitled to leave, they could use it when they return.

As I was explaining, the government should have adopted this measure, along with others, a long time ago. The young men and women, Quebeckers and Canadians, who enrol in the armed forces are doing a job. I have had the chance to speak to some of them. This is far from fighting for the Queen. These young people are ready for adventure. That is what the armed forces advertises. That is what they are trying to sell.

They consider it to be a job, and more and more, they are expecting to be treated like workers. Parental leave is part of the new rights. Family rights. It is part of what we refer to as the work-life balance. The government must take a closer look at this situation, otherwise it will have a hard time recruiting.

Out of personal interest, I took training in workplace sociology. We need to understand that the new generations, generations X and Y, unlike the baby boomers and the veterans before us, work to live. The baby boomers and veterans before us lived to work. It is completely different. The armed forces must pay more attention to labour rights issues. Young men and women choose a job when they enrol. They see opportunities and we must be able to continue to offer them opportunities. We also need to be very respectful of their rights.

As I said, they work to live. Their goal in life is to work so that they can afford recreational activities and have fun once they retire. We should be improving their work conditions. That is what the government must do. We need to stop thinking that they will be excited and want to enrol if we give them nicer equipment and new toys. Enrolling, to them, is like starting a job. We have to keep passing legislation that will improve their work conditions. If we apply this outlook on life to amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, it would allow them to take the parental leave that they missed out on because they were on a mission or that was cut short because they had to go on a mission.

That is one angle, but there are others as well. Because of the work they are doing, they have psychological and physical needs that must be taken care of. They are putting their lives in danger. This is not just any kind of work. It is dangerous. They chose to do it because they love adventure and that is what the advertisements promise them. They very quickly realize that it is very dangerous. They are risking their lives and that, inevitably, can cause emotional shock. This type of work can also cause physical problems.

This service has to be provided. We are not getting from the government the feeling of any firm desire to invest in physical rehabilitation and psychological support. Yet, that is how we can attract young men and women into the military.

In addition, there is a petition being circulated which calls for the compensation scheme for injured military personnel under the Veterans Charter to be amended so that they receive a lifetime pension. Again, this is about working conditions.

The Conservatives have to stop thinking that the young men and women, the young Quebeckers who enrol do so for the country or for the Queen. That is completely out of date. This is the age of Internet and video games. Many young people really enjoy playing war.

In their ads, the Canadian Forces offer young people a taste of adventure. Inevitably, some join the army, but they look at it like a job. The course I took on the sociology of work made me realize that the young men and women who join the army are no different from those who choose other types of jobs.

As I said, generation X and the new generation Y work to live. Working is something they have to do to pay for their leisure time. We live in an age of leisure. The new generations are not like us; we learned to live to work. Work was important to us and even more important to our parents and grandparents. That is what they lived for, but the new generations are the complete opposite. The psychology of the young men and women who enlist in the army is no different from that of their peers. We have to be able to offer them attractive working conditions, because serving in the army is a job for them. The army is their employer, and they consider military service a job. I know what I am talking about. Studies have been done that show this is true.

The generations that come after us, the baby boomers, will have more job opportunities, which stands to reason. In Quebec alone, 150,000 jobs will be available around 2018. Young people know this, and they are well aware that if they do not like a job, they can always look for another one, because they will have no trouble finding work.

We can try to convince them otherwise, but they will let us know that that has not been their experience. We are going to have to adapt, which is why I took this course on the sociology of work. It is clear that employers who cannot adapt will go out of business. Quite simply, they will have no more employees. That means that if the army does not adapt, people will stop enlisting. The Conservatives may think they can still impose mandatory enlistment, but that would surprise me. It would not go over very well, and they could forget about it in Quebec.

We must be very respectful of the work our young men and women, our sons and daughters, Quebeckers and Canadians, do for the armed forces.

This bill must be improved. It changes employment insurance so that soldiers who would have been entitled to parental benefits or parental leave would still be entitled if they are on mission, but these benefits must be made retroactive for soldiers who have just lost their entitlement because they were on mission in Afghanistan, for example.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I am a bit disappointed that he minimized the role that people play in our military as just a job. Lots of people join the military for Queen and country, for protecting our freedoms, human rights and all the benefits we enjoy as Canadians.

The member sort of brushed off the history of the armed forces. Generation after generation of families and individuals joined the military because their parents and their grandparents did. They fought for our freedom. People know full well that when they volunteer for the army, the air force or the navy, they may be called upon to fight for our great country. That is not just a job, that is a calling. The people who do this surely need to be properly compensated, and this government has done more than any other government to ensure they are compensated and that they have the tools they need to do their job.

Could the hon. member maybe moderate the rhetoric and at least recognize that people in the military are doing what they believe in and are fighting and representing Canada abroad to make our country better for Queen and country.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am not surprised by the minister's comments. He truly is a Reform Conservative. He can believe what he wants, but the problem is that even if the children of CF members were willing to take their fathers' places, the numbers would still be lower because baby boomers had fewer children. More and more of the young men and women who will enlist do not come from military families. If he thinks there will be enough children from military families to take over for their fathers, he is mistaken. The armed forces are going to face personnel shortages.

My colleague said these people enlist to fight for their country. That is not how the armed forces are advertised in the media. Instead, the ads ask young people if they like adventure. The armed forces are selling adventure and that is fine. I have a great deal of respect for military work.

The problem is that for young men and women of generation X and generation Y, it is a job like any other. Those generations work to live and have a completely different outlook from that of their parents and grandparents.

We can continue with the status quo, but if we do not address the working conditions, the armed forces are going to face personnel shortages.

At least I had the chance to share my thoughts here today, to wake up the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. They are wrong to believe that all young men and women who enlist do so for the Queen.

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that he does not need to wake up the NDP. We are very attuned to this issue. We are in favour of sending the bill to committee and I believe we are in support of the Bloc's amendment to backdate the coverage for people who are already in the process, because the bill says that the measure will not start until it receives royal assent.

However, is he planning to support the NDP amendment brought forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, which would expand the coverage of these 50 to 60 people who would be covered under the bill to include members of the police forces who are deployed as part of missions outside of Canada, along with the military?

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the NDP. He and his colleagues are on the right track with the realization that better working conditions should be provided to our young men and women who enlist in the forces. With respect to the amendment, I do not sit on the committee that will deal with the bill but, given that it involves parental leave among other things, I personally have no problem with this being extended to police forces and to the RCMP.

I have no problem with that, especially since, if we look at the trends with the new generations, those of our children and grandchildren, we can see that, without better working conditions, they will shy away from hazardous occupations because they will have many other opportunities. The fact is that those generations will get many job offers and they will take those with the best working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague's observation that young people today are not always driven by the same motivation that their fathers and grandfathers were. Many members of my family were in the armed forces 30 or 40 years ago and a number of other family members are in the army today. They each have completely different reasons that motivate them. Young people today realize that it is above all a job and they flat out say that they go oversees to help people in impossible situations and not out of a sense of national pride.

My question for my colleague is the following. We know that soldiers who return from combat with physical or psychological injuries receive lump sums for those injuries. This has even been criticized by the Canadian Forces ombudsman, who said that he did not see why people who have been psychologically injured should have a large sum of money put at their disposal when they are often under the influence of alcohol or drugs. That is what he said. We have the example of General Roméo Dallaire, which does not go all that far back.

Does my colleague not think that implementing appropriate measures to give soldiers the same rights as other workers is a much better way to help those who are defending us abroad, defending the government's positions ?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond for sharing his perspective on this issue. As he said, members of his own family were or are in the Canadian Forces. He understands that if we want to renew our armed forces, if we want the qualified personnel we need, we have to offer better working conditions and support for mental health needs. We need to prioritize support for problems caused by accidents or physical problems because that is part of the working conditions.

We have to be able to tell our young men and women that we know they are risking their lives, and that if anything bad ever happens to them, they will get help. We need to stop buying them war toys and make sure that these young men and women get the same working conditions as other workers. All other workers, whether they are in the construction industry or some other industry, are covered by workplace accident laws. Those workers get support. We have to do at least that much for our military personnel or nobody will want to join the armed forces.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill that deeply affects us all because there are important changes to be made. Wars are not what they once were. The situation has changed since the last world war, in 1945.

The soldiers we sent to Afghanistan at the very beginning were supposed to be peacemakers and rebuild the country. Their mission changed along the way. These soldiers were trained to rebuild the country, but now they are engaged in a war without having received any training before leaving. They received another type of training and have had to change their work and adjust to a war in which they did not necessarily decide to participate at the beginning. They have remained in Afghanistan. I would say that these men—and women, as there are now many women in the army—are courageous. We have lost many soldiers since the beginning and that is a sad reality. However, we accepted our responsibilities and will stay there until 2011.

When young people join the army, they tell themselves that it is a job. It is not just a job, it is a commitment. They do not sign up for a 9 to 5 job. They go out into the field and do not know what they will be dealing with. The land is littered with mines and IEDs explode everywhere. They build a school and it is destroyed the next day. There are situations that our soldiers were not necessarily prepared to deal with.

Having said that, we do not oppose the bill, but we would like to make some improvements. When we change a law, let us get it right in the first place so that it respects the rights of military workers who choose to enter the army and risk their lives while doing their work, which is difficult work. It is not a 9 to 5 job. It is a hard job that takes them away from their family for months, sometimes years. They should receive all the help available when they return, in order to lead as normal a life as possible.

What I am really concerned about are soldiers' many physical and psychological needs. I would like to share some statistics. If I were in the government's position, I would be really worried about the way I was treating the men and women who decide to join the army. The armed forced should provide adequate follow-up for soldiers because 4% of the Kandahar veterans develop suicidal tendencies. That is a huge number. They do not just develop suicidal tendencies; several young people have committed suicide.

This is a serious problem. Parents whose children come back after four or five months are not equipped to deal with this kind of situation. They do not know how to react. I am talking about young people who still live with their parents, but there are also young fathers who come back completely transformed. Families have no resources to deal with this situation.

Anyone returning from Kandahar or any other war-torn country experiences shock. Right now, no resources at all are made available to help them. About 4.6% of them have symptoms of severe depression and over 15% have mental health issues. That number is huge. That adds up to 20%.

That is why I believe that the government and society are failing the soldiers who come back from the front, from a war, and it is a war. They need to get help, but they may not have the means to pay for that help.

I believe that should be an integral part of each mission. As soon as soldiers, male or female, return from Kandahar or anywhere else, they should be placed under observation to ensure that they are capable of normal social reintegration. If they are not, we have to make sure that we give them the resources they need to get better. I believe that is critical.

I would like to tell hon. members about a young man who served two tours in Kandahar. Before going on his first mission, this young man really believed that this was a job and that he would go and work over there for six months and see what happened. He was also looking for some discipline, which he got with training when he went on mission. When he returned from his first tour, he did not feel at home anymore. He did not feel he could readjust to society, so he went back for another six months, but when he came home again, he was completely unable to reintegrate and lived on the fringes of society.

His parents, who did not know what to do or how to deal with him anymore, tried to get help. But people need specialized help in such cases. You cannot just ask a psychologist who looks after people with psychological problems caused by a separation or something else to treat this sort of problem. This young man was returning from the war. He had seen his friends die in battle or lose legs or arms. These people need specialized help when they come home. But there is a serious lack of help, and we must find solutions very, very quickly.

In my opinion, when this bill goes to committee, the committee members will have to look closely at this issue, because if we do not act right away, we are going to lose countless people. We are going to lose more people when they come back from the war than we lose in battle. This is disturbing, and it is not very reassuring. It means that we are not doing our jobs in this House and that the government is not doing its job. It means that the government does not care about our soldiers. That should not be the perception, but it is right now.

There are people who are losing children because they commit suicide. There have been a number of cases where men have killed themselves on returning home from the war, and the women with young children they leave behind feel ignored.

In addition, we must take all kinds of things into account in this bill, such as the pension. If a soldier is killed on the battle field, the widow or widower receives only 50% of the pension. Have they not considered that this person gave his life and perhaps spent several years defending a country, protecting it and trying to restore order? It is unacceptable that the soldier's parents, or a mother who is left alone to raise three children, are left with nothing.

I think that we must absolutely ensure that families receive more than half of the pension. They should receive at least three quarters to ensure that they can survive. The family will be going through an extremely difficult time. It will have to rebuild. The mother will have to start her life over to enable her kids to go to school and to provide all of the basic necessities.

I do not think that is too much to ask. When a soldier has spent years at war, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, it is not too much to ask that a spouse would receive more money to get through this mourning period and to start over, which is not easy.

Furthermore, we must ensure that these men and women receive psychological help. Help not only for the soldiers, but also for the families, because they will be scarred for life. Losing a loved one in war is tragic and traumatic. Often, these men and women fall into a depression and are not even able to care for their children. I think it is important to provide immediate support and to offer them assistance. They must have access to specialists, which is not the case right now. They need specialists.

Roméo Dallaire himself has talked about how unbearable life was when he returned and how people are left to fend for themselves when they come home. This measure must be a priority. We have to think about the money we should be giving these families, and also about the emotional support that people need. It is very important. We have to think not only about the families, but also about the parents and other people who are affected, including brothers and sisters. It is important.

When a tragedy occurs at a school for example, psychological support is always provided within 24 hours. Within 24 hours, psychologists, psychiatrists, specialists and social workers arrive at the school to provide support and to comfort the young people who have had a shock, and provide them with the necessary care to get through the crisis.

Why could we not do the same thing for our soldiers? I think it is the least we could do.

I think it is a shame that nothing is being done. I hope that with this bill we will truly focus on this because it is necessary. Mark my words, over the coming months and years, there will be more soldiers committing suicide and being ill after their return than dying on the battlefield, and that is completely unacceptable. In any event, even one person lost in a war is one too many.

These soldiers come home with psychological, psychiatric and physical wounds. It is not easy to go on with life after losing an arm or a leg. It is not easy to find a job after being a soldier for many years either. It is difficult even if it has not been so many years, even if the soldier has only been in the army for five years. It is almost impossible for soldiers to go to work in a 9 to 5 job. They do not work from 9 to 5. They work in the field, always on alert, always on their guard and always protecting the public and protecting their own lives. And yet, after all that, we expect them to fit into any old job.

And that is why employment insurance is such an important issue. We have been saying this forever—we need to increase benefits from 55% to 60% and the number of weeks needs to be increased for military personnel so that when they return home they really have the time to resume a normal life and ensure that they find a job that really suits them.

I doubt that when they come home they wake up the next morning knowing what they want to go into. They have other work to do. They have to exorcize some of the war demons, forget everything they saw and deal with all of the psychological wounds. They have to take some time to get reoriented and they need help with that. They need intervenors—people who will meet with them, who can guide them and tell them what they would be good at. Perhaps soldiers would be excellent intervenors. Or maybe they could work with children. We do not know.

The important thing is that they receive guidance. That is a necessity and it will take time. They must also be able to provide for their families and meet their own needs. That takes money. And that is where employment insurance is very important. They need to have the financial ability and the necessary tools to resume a normal life.

Those who lose a limb—an arm or a leg—or suffer other physical trauma should be compensated. We should not give them a lump sum if they lose an arm. We do not give them a lump sum if they lose a leg. The person loses much more when that happens. First, there is terrible a psychological shock and, second, where will these people work afterwards? What will they do for work?

What does a young person of 25 do after losing an arm or a leg? Small miracles can be done, but we must make sure these people are well compensated and well taken care of, so they can also go on with their lives in another field.

I think a great deal needs to be done and very little has been done so far. I would say that we here in Parliament have done a less than stellar job supporting the troops we send overseas. We are all proud of them. We have Canadian Forces members representing us in Kandahar, but we need to take care of these people when they come home.

Some come home and are very tough, very strong. They will do fine and thank goodness. I am very happy for them, very happy indeed. Perhaps they will pursue a career in the military for the rest of their lives. However, other people come home and have a completely different experience. We must help those people.

We also need to think about parental leave. I will close on this thought, because I think I am almost out of time. Parental leave is important. If they cannot take it while they are overseas—which is understandable, since they may have to stay over there if there is a crisis—they must be able to defer that leave. If they come home to take their parental leave but are called back to duty because of an emergency, that leave must not be lost; instead, it must be deferred. I do not think this is too much to ask. It is the same amount of money, except that, if we send that person back overseas, the parental leave must be granted at a later date. I think this would only be fair, because these people have families, too.

We cannot treat Canadian Forces members like objects. They are human beings like us. The hours these people work are appalling, and they see things that we here in the House might not be able to endure.

Accordingly, I think we must show them some respect and give them all the help they need so that when they come home, they continue making us proud, they continue to feel proud of themselves, and they can continue living balanced, normal, healthy lives.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that the Bloc members are saying those things. In fact, they voted against the Veterans Charter. They voted against providing the equipment that the men and women in uniform need. They have voted against every initiative this government, and really any other government, has put forward to support the military members and their families.

First the Bloc members degrade the motivation of our men and women for their service to our great country. Then they say the thing they are now saying. Then when it comes time to stand and be counted, to provide the supports for our military, they vote no every time.

Will the Bloc members apologize for all the times they have said no to our military and for their refusal to support the military?

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to my colleague across the way that we are not talking about equipment here. We are talking about what our forces are dealing with over there and how they are being treated. We are talking about employment insurance, parental leave, psychological and psychiatric services, if required, upon their return. That is what we are talking about.

We support this bill, but we would like to make it better, and that is also a good thing. We want to give them more and to provide them with services. I cannot understand the member's position. Again, from what he just said, the Conservatives' thinking is clear as day. It is as if they were saying, “Let us buy equipment and forget about the military personnel when they come back; we do not care. That does not matter; our job there will be over. We will give them toys and, when they come back, they can deal with their problems on their own”. That is a totally unacceptable way of thinking, and I will never go along with something like that. We did vote against some things which we felt were wasteful. But when it comes to bringing soldiers home, giving them back their dignity, ensuring they have a healthy lifestyle and making sure they do not commit suicide, I am sorry, but no price tag can be put on that.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member across the House said, I found the member's speech on this bill to be very heartfelt. In fact, it appears to me to be furthering the benefit availability that the government is putting forward. We certainly fully support the amendment the Bloc is proposing and, of course, as my colleague said, we look forward to the Bloc's support of our amendment. I would encourage that the bill be amended to include not just police who are deployed overseas but also the many other officials, including peacemakers, who are deployed overseas to help in missions. We need to ensure that they are also covered.

I particularly appreciated the member's discussion about the breadth of the issue when soldiers return home. Even though the soldiers would like to immediately return and take up their parental leave, I have seen cases in Edmonton where soldiers have returned home and are so traumatized by the war that they have a hard time relating to their newborn children whom they are just meeting for the first time.

It is very important that we reach out and provide even more benefits to our soldiers when they return home. We need to ensure they have affordable access to quality child care and other support to help them when they return home to their families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think that we have a similar and humane view of our soldiers. I completely agree with her.

As I said earlier, we cannot put a price tag on helping these people. I will give an example. A father returning from Kandahar has seen horrible things. He saw children killed and women raped. He saw all kinds of things that do not happen here. In Canada, our tolerance for violence would maybe be a two out of ten, while in war-torn countries, it is an eight out of ten. We are not used to that.

I know that they are trained, but still, at home things are not like that. When they return home and must start taking care of a family, it is not easy. They are scarred, shattered, and their dignity takes a beating. They no longer know who they are. They do not want to talk about it with their partner, because they are ashamed of their feelings and their weakness. We must find a way to seek them out and help them.

It is not an easy thing to do. The family, on its own, cannot help these men and women who are proud. There is a sense of pride in being a member of the military. Sometimes, they come back to Canada shattered. That is unfortunate, but it does happen. I am not saying that it happens to everyone. However, we absolutely have to do something for those who are affected. In order to help them, they must be seen and assessed by specialists as soon as they get back. If we wait six months, a year or longer, the damage will have been done. Soldiers become alcoholics, or they take drugs or any kind of anti-depressant. They do not know what else to take to dull the pain. It is an internal illness that is extremely difficult to detect. We have to be able to offer them services as quickly as possible so they can take hold of themselves quickly and not go down the wrong path, which is not desirable.

We send men and women to defend us, and we are proud of them. We boast about it. Then they come back to Canada and we let them fend for themselves. I believe that is unacceptable.

This legislation is good news and it should be adopted as quickly as possible because there are men and women coming back now and more who will return in 2011. We must be able to provide for them and to look after them. This must be a lesson to us for the future, when we decide to become involved in a war somewhere else in the world. We have to take appropriate action and be equipped, but not with war toys such as tanks and trucks. That is not what we need. We need military equipment, but that is not the purpose of this bill, which will help military members who return from a very, very difficult mission.

The question has been asked whether reservists are included in the bill. The bill deals with roughly 50 to 60 cases per year and will cost about $600,000 a year.

The proposed measure does include reservists who due to military requirements have their parental leave deferred or are ordered to return to duty while on leave under the EI parental benefits. The measure also extends the period for which they are eligible by another 52 weeks. In fact, parental benefits provide income replacement for up to 35 weeks to biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child. The benefits may be taken by either parent or shared between them. If the parents opt for these benefits, only one two-week waiting period must be served.

I thought I should point that out because I was asked that question.

Would the member be willing to entertain the amendment from the NDP which would include the measure to include police officers involved in these missions?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support. I should point out to him that I do not sit on that committee either, but that, as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois indicated, it will very likely be included. The committee has to look at this and see what is involved.

Personally, I think we cannot put a price tag on helping these people, whether police or military. They do extraordinary work. They protect us and help in many ways to make things better for others. I cannot see why they could not be included.

That is something that will have to be discussed at committee and decided by the hon. members. They know where we stand on this bill, which will hopefully be approved quickly at committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-13, which recommends changes to employment insurance. The summary of the bill states:

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period and the period during which parental benefits may be paid for Canadian Forces members whose period of parental leave is deferred or who are directed to return to duty from parental leave.

My party and I are certainly going to support this bill. We have to recognize that our troops, who are defending our country or democracy everywhere in the world on a Canadian mission, deserve to be given consideration in this regard, so that they are not penalized. If our soldiers had not gone overseas, they would have been able to take parental leave, for example, to be with their newborn child. That is so important.

Most of the people in the House of Commons are parents. In our day we did not have parental leave. Parental leave was something wonderful for our parents and it was wonderful for their children. We are living today in a world where both spouses work, and parents are not able to stay at home with a newborn child. The child is sent to a day care centre because the parents have to work. A bill like this one is appropriate. It would give parents the chance to stay with the child for the first year of his or her life. That is wonderful.

Our troops do us honour everywhere they go. The Bloc member clearly stated other benefits that we might give our troops. This is one benefit we can support.

The member who introduced this bill said that he knocked on a door and a soldier answered. It was that soldier who made him aware of this issue.

With respect to employment insurance, I can say we have knocked on many doors. People have made us aware of the problems they have with the employment insurance scheme and the problems it causes in society.

The government has a surplus of $57 billion to $60 billion in the employment insurance fund. This program is paid for entirely by workers. Many people are entitled to employment insurance. Given the eligibility criteria of a minimum of 420 hours or 840 hours worked, in the case of a first claim many people are excluded from the employment insurance system. For women, the same is true. Many women work part-time and cannot accumulate the number of hours required. They are not eligible for employment insurance.

Over 800,000 people in Canada pay into the employment insurance scheme but are not eligible because of the restrictions the government has imposed. The government is making piecemeal changes.

At the same time there are many other changes that the government could make. I know this is a bill for our troops, and I will come back to it quickly, but we have to look at the human element and the changes being requested.

There is the case of Marie-Hélène Dubé, who lives in Montreal North. She circulated a petition signed by 62,000 people that was presented here by a member of the Bloc Québécois. It asks that sick leave benefits be extended to 52 weeks.

We have to see the human side of this issue. People work their entire lives and then have the misfortune of falling ill. For example, a person who gets cancer has to take treatments prescribed by a specialist for a year. But after 15 weeks he or she no longer qualifies for employment insurance unless he or she works for a company that provides insurance. If that individual has no income, he or she is thrown on to welfare.

It is totally unacceptable that employees who have contributed into this program cannot qualify for benefits.

I want to return to what really happens on both sides, the military side and the civilian side. Beginning with the military side, the government says we should support our troops. There is nothing wrong with that. We should support our troops and we do, even though the Conservatives try to imply that the opposition does not support the troops because we disagree with them about some of the missions the government sends them on.

There is a difference between a mission and supporting the troops. We support our troops, but sometimes there are missions with which we disagree. We live in a democracy and have the right to express our views in the House of Commons. That is what we are elected to do, to express our views on things like this.

They ask us to support our troops, our veterans, our soldiers and our military personnel. Some soldiers are on disability and that was officially acknowledged by the army. I will give the House one example. As a result of a disability, this solder is put on the reserves, and I am not sure about the exact military term, and could stay there for three years with pay but without serving in the regular forces.

The government knew he was going to retire. He knew he would be finished with the forces at the end of May and would receive the official pension from the federal government. The army told him, though, that he would start getting his pension 8 to 12 weeks from then.

The Conservatives say we should support our troops and our veterans, but here I am forced to get involved. I have to ask National Defence why it needs 12 weeks to cut a cheque for a soldier when it has known for 3 years that he was going to retire. The cheque will not be ready at the end of May, and when he retires he will have to wait 12 weeks without any income. Is that how we support our troops?

Another soldier has been in the Canadian Forces for 20 years and would be retiring in three years. He says that because of the medical problem which the CF has recognized, he was put into another category and is no longer in the regular forces. He said that the military has known for 3 years that he would be taking his pension this month, but he was told that he would not be able to get his pension for at least 8 to 12 weeks from now. He wants to know, who will feed his family? Is that how we support our troops?

Our troops go to war, they defend our country, and they defend democracy around the world. When they come back, they need our support. I support Bill C-13 because it would give our soldiers, when they come back from a mission, a break of 52 weeks to spend with their families. They would receive parental leave, like any other Canadian.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst suggested to the government that clause 3 of Bill C-13 be amended by adding another line, after line 5, page 2:

For the purposes of subsection (3.01), a member of a police force who is a Canadian citizen in the employ of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Canadian citizen under contract with the Government of Canada, and who has been deployed as part of a mission outside Canada is considered to be a claimant.

I believe this is reasonable. We are not talking about millions of people. We have police officers who are deployed in various countries to conduct missions and to help in reconstruction efforts. We have other members of police forces who go to those countries.

We know of a specific case. RCMP Sergeant Gallagher lost his life after landing in Haiti the day of the earthquake. He went to the country to help the Haitian government and community build up its police force. We have other citizens in similar situations.

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time to move to another subject. So when the debate is resumed, the hon. member will have 10 and one half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, next week represents another National Nursing Week. First, I would like to wish happy nursing week to all the nurses and nursing students across Canada.

I would like to make a special mention to the nurses of the Markham Stouffville Hospital and York Central Hospital who service the good people of Oak Ridges—Markham every single day.

Nurses possess a tremendous amount of skill and knowledge as well as a deep sense of kindness and commitment. Without them hospitals, seniors residences and hospices could not function. When patients are at their most vulnerable, the most embarrassing situations, and the most painful situations of their lives, nurses are there to provide them with quality care, free of judgment and full of compassion.

Nursing does not fall under the list of most glamourous occupations, but it is of course, on the top of the list of most vitally important professions in this country.

Since 1971, May 12, which is Florence Nightingale's birthday, symbolizes International Nurses Day.

I encourage Canadians to give thanks to all the nurses who, without a doubt, have touched the lives of so many through their hard work and medical expertise. This is another reason why I am so proud to represent the people of Oak Ridges—Markham.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, I joined MHA Roland Butler and Mayor Glenn Littlejohn at the Royal Canadian Legion in a wreath laying for the Battle of the Atlantic.

Recently, I attended the Ascension High School gala dinner. This community of 5,500 people raised over $47,000 to benefit the students.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what town this all happened in? Bay Roberts.

This week, using flawed data and shoddy research, MoneySense magazine named that town as the worst place to live in Canada. This could not be further from the truth.

Bay Roberts is a vibrant, bustling community with a growing population. This town is full of volunteerism, community spirit and pride is abundant.

MoneySense may think Bay Roberts lacks culture, but obviously has never attended “A Time in Pigeon Inlet”.

I always look forward to the Klondike Days and the Winter Lights Festival.

These are just a few examples of what makes Bay Roberts a special place. If the magazine representatives took the time to visit, it would not take them long to realize that they must have printed their list upside down.

MoneySense may not want to rank Bay Roberts number one, but common sense would.

Mr. Speaker, the prizes in the 12th annual Quebec Entrepreneurship Contest for the Centre-du-Québec region were awarded in Drummondville on April 29. The students and entrepreneurs who were honoured greatly deserve the praise they have received.

Winners from the Drummond RCM were as follows: in the bio-food category—Moulin La Fine Fleur, owned by Julie Tessier and Étienne Poirier; in the commerce category—Steven Frenette from Boiseries Sir Laurier Inc.; for technological and technical innovation—Marcel Boutin's Produitson Inc.; in the category of business operation, processing and production—Daniel Marcotte from Jeux Modul'Air; and in the category of services to individuals—Isabelle Auger, Jonathan Delorme and Mylène Fillion from the Centre de stomie Lingerie Sérénité.

In the Érable RCM, AZN2 Environnement Inc. won in the category of services to companies. And in the Arthabaska RCM, the Marché de solidarité régionale de Victoriaville won in the social economy category.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to celebrate the centennial of two great schools in Ottawa Centre.

Devonshire Community Public School is a wonderfully diverse, French-immersion elementary school named after a former Governor General. It serves the Hintonburg and Preston/Somerset communities, and was recently officially designated a heritage building. Students, parents and staff kicked off Devonshire's 100th birthday by opening a time capsule prepared by the school's students 25 years ago.

Another great Ottawa school celebrating its centennial this year is Hopewell. Hopewell Avenue Public School has been a cornerstone of the history of old Ottawa south and the Glebe. The growth of the community has been reflected in the faces that have passed through that school's doors.

I invite all parliamentarians to join me in celebrating 100 years of learning at Devonshire and Hopewell schools right here in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, after 60 years, six decades of official diplomatic relations between Canada and Israel, our two countries have launched a joint stamp to commemorate this successful relationship that has endured.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has opposed this wonderful initiative and has singled out Israel for unfounded and unfair criticism.

I rise today to point out that the Union of Postal Workers is in fact wrong.

Israel is our friend and our ally, and no prime minister in Canadian history has been more loyal and more supportive of Israel, especially in the war against terrorism.

Our shared interests make us allies. Our shared values make us friends. Our shared history makes us proud.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a tremendous person, an exemplary public servant and an exceptional community leader.

Ned MacDonald, a long-serving councillor in the municipality of the county of Inverness, died unexpectedly on April 23. He was 63 years old.

An educator by profession, Ned was a true inspiration to the many students who passed through his classroom over the years. His love for teaching was rivaled only by his passion for history, which was evident in his tireless work to establish the Inverness Miner's Museum and the many books he wrote on the history of Inverness.

Ned MacDonald served the people of Inverness and area as councillor for two decades. The community has lost a special son and one of its greatest champions.

On behalf of myself and all constituents in Cape Breton—Canso, I want to acknowledge Ned's priceless contribution to life in his community and offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Abby, and his two daughters, Janna and Breanna.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise in the House to pay tribute to a young hero from my community.

On July 12, 2007, Aaliyah Braybrook, a 12-year-old resident from the town of Clairmont, was babysitting two young neighbour boys when a fire broke out in the home. Immediately, Aaliyah did what her training at the Red Cross babysitting course had taught her to do. She evacuated the home, saving the two young residents and the family pet. She then called 911. Within minutes, the mobile home was burned to the ground.

This week, Aaliyah's heroic actions were rewarded by a lawsuit initiated by an unnamed insurance company demanding that she take financial responsibility for a portion of the $350,000 in damages. Aaliyah did her job. She saved those who were in her care and immediately warned authorities of the fire.

Aaliyah is a hero. I think so, her family thinks so and so does her community. I call on this unnamed insurance company to back off and to recognize Aaliyah for the hero that she is.